(1) Did the courts of the State of New Jersey violate the plaintiff-appellant's due process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey when they did not allow him access to their courts for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants in that the courts of the State of New Jersey failed to consider and otherwise ignored the holdings Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 253 (1958) and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 to 475 (1985), which provide for special personal jurisdiction when out-of-state defendants commit and otherwise engage in intentionally tortious acts.

(2) Did the courts of the State of New Jersey violate the plaintiff-appellant's due process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey when they did not allow him access to their courts for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants when, through judicial artifice, they deemed that these intentional tortfeasors who targeted a citizen and resident of New Jersey — "would 'have been surprised' by jurisdiction in New Jersey" - notwithstanding that their home state of Florida would have found jurisdiction over similarly situated defendant intentional tortfeasors under comparable circumstances.

Did the courts of the State of New Jersey violate the due process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey when they did not allow him access to their courts for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants